Archive for the Debate 7 second reply Category

TelcontraRutz’s Reply 2nd time Great Debate #7

Posted in Debate 7 second reply on November 22, 2008 by egoeimi3

I put TelcontraRutz’s responses in () marks. My reply to Debate #7 which is my second reply in as much days is here for u to see. And I want people to take notice. Tel isn’t posting everything I asked.. and only is respondoning in my opinoin to questions she wants to answer.

What a reply.. very insuffienct when you read it in detail.. let me break down this reply while ignoring the insults on my intelligence yet again.. really sounds like a true Christian. If I can understand it comment.. oh, yeah, that’s very good! So here we go.

(Pauls memory could have been faulty) This acutally is honest, but Pauls memory isn’t faulty based on the promise Jesus made that the Holy Spirit would bring to rememberance all things He said to the Apostles… plus we are not talking about the if Paul could remember what he ate 20 days ago.. but people remember very big things. I remember the birth of each of my daughters why big event. I remember when I got married to my wife 5 years ago and what we did on our honey moon, big event. Big events is what we are talking about here, not small events. And Jews practice using their memories more than what is seen today.

(Jesus refuted handwashing remember) Oh my gosh, go’s to show you this young ones lack of biblical iterpetation.. wonder why she likes to say think for yourself.. I see why, when Jesus wasn’t refuting handwashing, but refuting the Teachers of the Laws extra rules and regulations they added to the already things put in place that God had Moses institute for His people. That is where dangerous doctrine comes from, when people don’t know what they are talking about concerning biblical hermenutics.

(If they can make up the idea of Purgatory to get people to go and fight in the Crusades, then they can make up a lot of other stuff. )

The idea of Purgatory as a Catholic you should know where that idea came from, it’s not made up, but came from the books in the Aprocropha. And if this is to say Paul, or Peter made things up, again, go’s to show how people really don’t know what they are talking about when they are claiming to be a Christian.. i question. Jesus gave them Authority, which part to you not understand? Do you not understand Jesus gave the Apostles the ability to “bind and loose” do you know what that means? Paul said Love is Kind, it doesn’t Evny, Boast or is Proud, Love isn’t self seeking.. and I’ll stop there.. where in that quote Jesus wouldn’t say? That agrees with what the Love of God is all about.. in fact Paul also said Love doesn’t delight in evil? Why would Jesus not agree with that? And obviously you don’t know what being lead by the Spirit means do you. Do you have the Holy Spirit in you? I question that, because you dont’ even sound like a person who is being lead by God.

And I want people to notice.. I asked in the past this young one.. how does one get saved? I also ask this, and don’t avoid answering, because as I’m reading you don’t answer quesitons point by point but skip over some of them. like the one I asked about getting saved. Would you die for Jesus? And another question you avoided. Did Jesus Resurrect? I like to see your reply on that.

(You’re right, the Bible is a historical text, and as a history student, we’re taught to treat every text with some degree of skepticism. I, for one, do not believe that the God of Love told the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites. How do you justify that, Egoeimi? You keep on telling me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong. So tell me, how can God, who had just given the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’, tell His people to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child? )

You can have your doubts, that’s ok, and the bible does say “test every spirit to see if it precedes from God or not” so that is biblical, I wouldn’t tell you not to question.. but God did order the war with the Caanites, and I notice u didn’t even bother to look at what I explained.. not all children died, or woman.. Historians who studied the Jewish history of the day, and I mean Jewish Historian, Messianic Jews would tell you that God allowed those that were willing to not fight to come into the camp.. I mentioned Rahab. God shows mercy to those that repent. Now the ones that died.. they fought back, and there is debate on the age of the children. But you would do well to know #1, thou shall not kill in the Hebrew translation of the word is murder. Murder is associated with pre-meditated.. hatred is the underlying cause of murder, when someone commits it, or they have a sinful motive, like someone breaking in to stell someones goods, they murder a person, because their motive was wrong.. killing isn’t a sin if it is for the right purpose. LIike for example, I don’t think you realize that Islam like Al-Queda they teach children as young a 5-8 years old to kill, and if you corrupt a child that early, it’s better that a few die because of what they will do in the end. And in this war with Iraq, children are put in the middle of the road to stop convoys, and teenage girls and men are blowing themselves up. So lastly, God created life, He can take it as He pleases, weather u or I or anyone likes it or not.

(No, perhaps an atheist society wouldn’t be all that peaceful, but you are using your religion to say that you are better than others. That simply spreads more dissension amongst us, and I tell you this; we don’t need it. As I’ve said over and over again, I don’t care what a person believes as long as they don’t ram their beliefs down my throat and can respect me for what I am. Maybe by your standards, Mohammed was not a prophet, but since he turned the whole of Arabia to God, I say he is. I might disagree with him on some aspects, but I respect him and the religion that he set up for God. )

I’m using my religion.. first off, Christianity isn’t a religion in the same sense as others, and i’m shocked that u who claims to be a Christian, u really speak like you are anti-Christian. You didn’t address Jesus’ statement “He said He is the only way” in fact Jesus said people will be condemned if they do not repent and turn to Him. The Apostles taught what Jesus preached. So why are u ignoring that? And please awnswer that. And forcing someone to believe something.. that doesn’t happen LOL.. a person either chooses to listen or they dont. Last I heard no one is being tied up in America to listen to christians preach. Go to Christian chat rooms and atheist are there arguing with the christians, why, forcing their beliefs on christians. I don’t make it a habit to look for trouble, but I do defend my faith as God equips Believers to do. Paul spoke to Greeks who were people who love to reason with their minds, Paul was the Apostle to them.. and he practice apologetics. so that’s what I do. And you to say Mohammad was a prophet is based on your reason, not what the bible says.. Mohammad doesn’t qualify. But if that is how you approach it, then that means anyone can become a prophet if they bring peace.. that isn’t the definition of a prophet. And mohammad lead people away from the God of the Bible which it came b/4 the Quran, and Muslims deny the Resurrection.. so why would he be a prophet when he didn’t lead people to the correct Creator, there is only One Creator.

Jesus didn’t accept the traditions of men.. but Jesus accepted the Word of God. Jesus made it clear that God’s Word supercedes mans words. Your calling Mohammad a prophet isn’t acceptable in Gods eyes.. because that would be your qualification for a prophet is based on them bring peace.. God’s qualification is they speak for God, and what they say that God said will happen in the Future has to happen 100%. You ignore that this is more valide then someone bringing peace. And the Anti-Christ is going to be a man of peace, that doesn’t mean this person whom is yet to come is a prophet because of that quaility.

(No, a person with a PhD might be more knowledgeable, but knowledge does not equal wisdom or intelligence. I have the potential to get a PhD. Just because I haven’t gotten one yet doesn’t mean I am less intelligent. It just means I have less experience in the area. Once again, I recommend a dictionary with clear concise definitions. )

Who said you were less intelligent? That isn’t the issue.. the issue is that you are taking your knowledge and saying that theoligians who study the text, the Hebrew, Greek, Aramiac they don’t know what they are talking about compared to you. That is the feeling a person gets when they speak to you about Genesis. You outright pretext a verse and apply it to the wrong verse in the OT. That isn’t how it works. Because of your lack of theolgical training, u are apt to doing this, which is dangerous. The Paul told Timothy to show himself approved when handing the Word of Truth.. when speaking and teaching people about God, u have to be well versed in understanding, and being lead the HS first and foremost. God set up teachers to teach. That is how God does it, until a person matures enough.. then they are suppose to go out and share and spread the Gospel.. do Ph’d within their respect contexts is important, u just can’t fly by the seat of your pants and wing it, and think that it’s correct. God has a order and gifts people accordingly. And u do know gifts of the Spirit is a real thing.

(In evolutionary terms, the red bioluminescent light might have developed because of mutations in the creatures’ DNA, which caused some changes in their chemical production.)

Now I want you to notice what u just said, and this is a common thing that evolutionary believers do. This one statement sets up the rest of what you said. when u say “might have developed because of mutations” you are repeating what u told me not to do. You have a presuppostion for mutations as if it were true.. and you snuck that right into the introduction to your explinatin for bioluminescent light. There is no truth to that at all, because you were not there to observe if it was mutation that caused it. That isn’t science.. that is faith. Science is based on testing, observation and repeating theories. We know asprin hinders blood clotting.. now we can test, observe and repeat that.. u can’t test what u said that mutations might have caused this in animals in the ocean that far down.

(These creatures use this light for communicating with each other and identifying others of their own species since most other sea creatures cannot detect such a light, which is important for their survival.)

Is this rehearsed? Is this a repeat from someone else? How do you know they used it for communication? Did you ever read up on this somewhere in a nature magazine? B/c if you did, then u are breaking the very thing u told me not to. I didn’t get this question or idea from an article about how something like this developed.. i thought about it.. but this statement you made seems to be right out of a science magazine.. because I don’t know if it was used for communications…. no one does for something that we didn’t witnessed. It could simple be there for an animal to see that deep, or to attrack a mate, or to catch prey.. or it could be a mutation, something wrong in the gene… but this seems to be rehearsed.

(Perhaps the creature with the best light gets the best mates, thus passing on good genes for the next generation.)

Perhaps indicates another guess, because this agian isn’t based on watching the animal millions of years ago.. or are u basing this on what they know now about animals with this? B/c that would again, not be u thinking but repeating what science says is going on today.

(This feature evolved because the first one to show this mutation in its phenotype managed to survive and mate with others of its species, thus passing on the beneficial mutant gene onto the next generation.)

How do I test that? What was the phenotype animal? What does it look like? This is pure assumption to say this feature evolved b/c the first one to show this mutation in it’s phenotype managed to survive. By the way.. how did it manage to survive without light? Did it have special eyes? Which u wouldn’t know, neither would I. But this feature as evolution would lead you to believe started slowly.. no features pop into existence that would be special creation.. evolution teaches slow change.. so prior to this special light some underwater creatures have, how did they see? How did they eat? How did they find a mate to mate with? Were they asexual first? You see I ask question, and u give pad answers like most evoutionist as if it’s that easy without filling the gaps.. i don’t like gaps.. i like completeness.. u are giving me the same old gap theoried evolution like the fossil record full of gaps..

(You said this: more and more of their offspring began to show this trait in the phenotype, and the ones without the red light now have an evolutionary disadvantage, so they began to die out because they couldn’t compete with their counterparts with red light. Give it a few million years, and every single creature of the species has inherited the gene for red light. )

What proof they began to die out? Give it a few million years? All assumption based.. u don’t know when a feature will show up an any animal.. u speak in the presuppostional assumption of long age.. when no evolutoinist knows when the next change will come, no one.. in your faith, it’s guessing that it will take a million.. just like it’s assume millions of years prior.. your answers still begs the question.

(you said: There, I hope you understood that, Egoeimi, because that’s the sort of answer a high school student has to write for their biology exam, and it might be too confusing for you. )

Yeah.. another ad hom attack that was unnecessary.. for what?

(You said:
I believe in free will. All the prophets are free to choose what they want to say and do. They might have to live with the consequences afterwards, but they made choices. They weren’t God’s puppets. You do know that ‘different beliefs’ does not automatically make someone wicked, right? The ‘proper’ beliefs don’t automatically make someone a good person either. It’s what you do that counts. I don’t see how the sheep and goats lecture has anything to do with our present topic. )

“you do know that ‘different beliefs’ does not automatically make someone wicked, right?

You need elaborate. And by definition all are wicked from the start. U must not believe in Origanal sin? The two have nothing to do with anything.. a person is born with a sinful heart, that is why everyone must repent as everyone has that charge according to Acts 17:30. You can be a good person in the worlds standards but in God economy, everyone can’t get to heaven without Jesus. Do you deny that? If you do, then it will continue to make me doubt that u really experience true converstion.. because u can’t say u are a Christian, but then say a person or everyone doesn’t need Jesus. Why don’t u start posting everything I said, so those that follow when u answer the question can see what I brought that up.. it’s simple.. I believe I said that in the context of peace.. but in it’s direct application, sheep represent those that repented and turned to Jesus.. goats are those who choose not to.. Jesus will return to take what is His, and to send those who are not Away. Two differnt Eternal destinations.

(You said:
The way Adam lay with his wife is symbolic of marriage and what happens after it. This is God saying that such an activity is right for a man and a woman who are completely committed to each other, and that people should reproduce for the sake of the species’ survival. There were those who believed in abstinence in those days, and that was not good for survival. Or, it could be a Hebrew myth. )

Very weak answer.. or it could be a hebrew myth. Your job was to show why they wouldn’t be literal people, and that the verse I quoted was equal to the seventy times seven verse u so easily pretext to say that Genesis is a symbolic account when it comes to creation. All moses did was give an account of Adam laying with his wife.. there is not teaching intended.. but an account of Adam and Eve procreating.. this isn’t symbolic or a myth… prove it’s a myth.. or i take that back, it could be a hebrew myth as you say.. so why or how could it be?

And I like how u didn’t answer all the questions.. u do know this is considered to be interllectually dishonest. I asked a lot of things, and I make an attempt to answer every one of your points or attacks. It took me approx. 1 hr to read and type going thru what u said. So give the people who are witnessing this.. everything that is said.. don’t cherry pick what u want to answer and what u do not.

I asked about sin b/4. Sin is a real thing, it’s disobedience to God. Adam sinned, it’s a fact that it’s taught that Sin came thru one man Adam.. but the Second Adam which is Jesus dealt with Sin and defeated it for us who are being Saved. Jesus talked about Adam and Eve when the Divorce issue came up.. that isn’t symbolic people… and I said b/4, if sin didn’t come thru real people but symbolic people then that means sin doesn’t really exist so why would we need Jesus? The Adamic Covenant was insituted with Adam… that isn’t made to symbolic people.

So in all fairness, u are not answering all the questions.. I asked way more.. and I have responded to the best that I can spending hrs on this computer answers your quesiton.. at least return the favor, and not take what you choose.

First, I thought that the Creation Museum was misleading even when I first heard of it in 2007; my brother and I laughed ourselves silly over it. Since the video was correcting the scientific mistakes…well, I can hardly attack the video maker for that. I might not agree with her views entirely, but she wasn’t attacking Christ, simply those who claim to follow him but fail to exercise their common sense and then try to force others to believe exactly what they believe as well. I told you to read more information, as it was pretty obvious by then that you knew nothing about evolution (not that you know anything now).

At any rate, as that screenshot proves, you were simply judgemental and assumed I was arrogant after I told you to read more.

You think calling someone arrogant is not an insult? Conceited, condescension, intolerable insolence; those terms were from the definitions you posted. How are those not insulting? Forget the science textbooks. You’d be better off with a dictionary. Once you’ve managed to figure out what words you can use and what words you can’t in a certain situation, then you can argue.

Must you resort to quoting? Firstly, Peter was human. His memory could have been faulty, and although he was an eyewitness to Jesus’ miracles and teachings, Jesus often refuted the teachings of the Old Testament. Remember the handwashing incident? So, as ArianneG summed up nicely, I believe in what came out of Christ’s mouth, not Paul, Peter, James, Timothy etc. If they can make up the idea of Purgatory to get people to go and fight in the Crusades, then they can make up a lot of other stuff.

You’re right, the Bible is a historical text, and as a history student, we’re taught to treat every text with some degree of skepticism. I, for one, do not believe that the God of Love told the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites. How do you justify that, Egoeimi? You keep on telling me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong. So tell me, how can God, who had just given the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’, tell His people to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child?

No, perhaps an atheist society wouldn’t be all that peaceful, but you are using your religion to say that you are better than others. That simply spreads more dissension amongst us, and I tell you this; we don’t need it. As I’ve said over and over again, I don’t care what a person believes as long as they don’t ram their beliefs down my throat and can respect me for what I am. Maybe by your standards, Mohammed was not a prophet, but since he turned the whole of Arabia to God, I say he is. I might disagree with him on some aspects, but I respect him and the religion that he set up for God.

I used to believe that Mohammed was not a prophet, but then I changed my mind after reading about and studying Islam. I’ve been brought up with the Christian faith, but it doesn’t mean I have to accept everything that my elders tell me. Jesus never accepted all the traditions.

No, a person with a PhD might be more knowledgeable, but knowledge does not equal wisdom or intelligence. I have the potential to get a PhD. Just because I haven’t gotten one yet doesn’t mean I am less intelligent. It just means I have less experience in the area. Once again, I recommend a dictionary with clear concise definitions.

In evolutionary terms, the red bioluminescent light might have developed because of mutations in the creatures’ DNA, which caused some changes in their chemical production. These creatures use this light for communicating with each other and identifying others of their own species since most other sea creatures cannot detect such a light, which is important for their survival. Perhaps the creature with the best light gets the best mates, thus passing on good genes for the next generation. The lights can also attract prey that can detect the red light, and that aids the survival of the species as well. This feature evolved because the first one to show this mutation in its phenotype managed to survive and mate with others of its species, thus passing on the beneficial mutant gene onto the next generation. It might not have shown up immediately in the next generation, as the gene could have been recessive, but over a great many years, more of the creatures with bioluminescent red light in their phenotype (meaning that, if the gene for red light was a recessive gene, they were homogenous), more and more of their offspring began to show this trait in the phenotype, and the ones without the red light now have an evolutionary disadvantage, so they began to die out because they couldn’t compete with their counterparts with red light. Give it a few million years, and every single creature of the species has inherited the gene for red light.

There, I hope you understood that, Egoeimi, because that’s the sort of answer a high school student has to write for their biology exam, and it might be too confusing for you.

I believe in free will. All the prophets are free to choose what they want to say and do. They might have to live with the consequences afterwards, but they made choices. They weren’t God’s puppets. You do know that ‘different beliefs’ does not automatically make someone wicked, right? The ‘proper’ beliefs don’t automatically make someone a good person either. It’s what you do that counts. I don’t see how the sheep and goats lecture has anything to do with our present topic.

The way Adam lay with his wife is symbolic of marriage and what happens after it. This is God saying that such an activity is right for a man and a woman who are completely committed to each other, and that people should reproduce for the sake of the species’ survival. There were those who believed in abstinence in those days, and that was not good for survival. Or, it could be a Hebrew myth.

You think I have not been persecuted for my beliefs? Look in the mirror. There stands one of my persecutors. I practise the Christ’s teachings of rationality, love and acceptance, and people persecute me for that.

And here are some random quotes from Egoeimi: I’m in bold.

Experimental Observations Only Yes, Egoeimi. And since creationism cannot be proven by experimentation, what exactly are you trying to say?
”Some lame defenders of evolutionism claim that one needs a degree in biology to refute the origins of life by chance.
All evolutionists need to do is demonstrate how life can naturally come from non-life. Ambiogenesis is not evolution. Get it through your head! That’s why I’ve always said that God created life, and then let the living organisms evolve into the organisms we see today. But only experimental observations please. Leave your imaginations and dreams at the door.” Yes, Egoeimi. Leave your daydreams at the door.

Patrick D. McGuire,
From an amazon.com review of ‘Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution’ by Lee M. Spetner

The Big Bang and Guano
”On July 12, an abandoned ranger headquarters at Tahquamenon Falls State Park blew sky-high, sending debris a hundred feet into the atmosphere and alarming campers fourteen miles away.

The explosion now has been traced to bat manure that for decades had been generating methane gas until in mid-July it became highly volatile and – kaboom!

Scientists believe that a similar cataclysm 15 billion years ago gave us the beginnings of the universe, though even scientists cannot account for those early bats, There are possible explanations for how the bat evolved. It was a land mammal to start off with. Mutation created a gene for webbed fingers. This gene got enhanced over millions of years and now code for the wings you see today. and for those of a religious disposition a world created by bat dung is too depressing to contemplate.” You know, no one ever said the world was created by bat dung. What is this argument trying to say?
‘The American Spectator’,
Sept. 1993, pp. 8,9

Ego-eimi, are you still trying to say that you have your own opinions? This random quoting makes you look:

a) too lazy to formulate your own arguments

b) lack the language to formulate your own arguments

c) love the copy and paste function or

d) all of the above